(092112)

Evolution's Bulldogs
and Advocates Declare Fiction is Fact—But
Why?

Questions:

Was
there something more to supporting Darwin than
simply a dedication to science and the data?

Who
where the early supporters of evolution theory?

Short Answer:

Names
like Lamarck, Wallace, and Buffon come to mind
when we think of evolution theory's earliest
formulations. But as we note elsewhere, the
Victorian era—when Darwin advanced his
theory—offered both support and criticism.
As it turns out, some support for the theory
was motivated by self interest that falls outside
science evidence—and inside an arena marked
by personal philosophy. While we only highlight
this point briefly, we are again noting that
there is more to the story on evolution than
simply the theory itself. This further complicates
progress on determining the real origin(s)
for life. But Darwin's "bulldogs"
are not simply historical figures, because
names associated with current science are advancing
the cause and would like you to think the theory
is now fact. The philosophical arena is still
with us. Perhaps this part of the story speaks
to a subjectivity concerning world views that
have nothing to do with objectively gathering
data in support of evolution. Why do they do
it—if not for science then it's for self!
The impact of evolution on science and education
risks our missing a full and remarkable view
or the true nature of our being, our origin,
and purpose. Declaring any fiction as fact
serves no objective view.

Consider This:

The
root of evolution theory goes back to ancient
thinkers. Some of their thoughts factored into
the theory as proposed later on:

Theories
of Anaximander and Empedocles held
that all animals, including man, began
in water. According to these theories,
some of the animals left the water
and adapted to living on land. The
Greeks even wrote of a kind of natural
selection, which later formed the main
point of Charles Darwin's theory. But
these ideas were not blessed with Aristotle's
backing, and they never gained a central
place in ancient science. Spetner
(NBC) Page 3

A
reasoning that science could provide all the
necessary explanations was itself evolutionary.

For
some time pressure had been building
to frame a naturalistic approach to
biology. Since the triumph of Newtonian
physics, many scientists had announced
their intention of extending the domain
of natural law to all other fields.
But the complexities of living things
had defied all attempts to fit them
into the naturalistic mold. As Huxley
asked plaintively in 1860, "shall biology
alone remain out of harmony with her
sister sciences?" (Huxley 1879). For
those caught in this dilemma, Darwin
came to the rescue. His goal was to
show how biology might be transformed
to fit the naturalistic ideal dominant
in other fields of science. And not
only biology but also the human sciences,
since his theory included the human
origins in explaining all life by completely
naturalistic causes. Pearcey
(MC) Page 76

Okay,
that helps to set the stage. We next take a
moment to indicate something about several
of Darwin's supporters. We admit this is hardly
a complete treatment of the topic at hand.
However, there is enough here to indicate what
a broader discussion should include. To truly
characterize the role of 'Darwin's Bulldogs'
requires turning over a few stones to see what's
there! So, let's look at a few comments on
Herbert Spencer, Thomas H. Huxley, and Charles
Lyell.

Herbert
Spencer —
Science is Secondary

Is
Spencer the rare individual with motivations
that employ evolution theory for a purpose
other than to get at a scientific explanation
for origins and the appearance of life forms
on earth? This individual may in fact be a
scientific poster child for mixed motives.
If we can put off consideration of design in
nature then one eliminates the investigations
that open the door to an intelligent agent
at work in the universe. If nature alone is
the agent for all we see, then that's the end
of all discussion. But as we have entertained
previously, naturalistic explanations fail
dramatically. But if in the meanwhile, one
wishes to hold fast to naturalism, then evolution
is the stopgap argument—regardless of
any objective review of the impossible hurdles
to supporting evolution theory. Spencer was
taken by naturalism and thus we should not
be surprised to read:

This
semireligious attachment to naturalism
explains why Spencer eventually became
a tireless promoter of Darwinism. It
was not because he was persuaded by
Darwin's scientific theory; he rejected
Darwinism and embraced Lamarkianism.
Yet Spencer saw clearly that once he
had embraced philosophical naturalism,
he had no alternative but to accept
some form of naturalistic evolution.

He
goes on: "The doctrine of the universality
of natural causation, has for its inevitable
corollary the doctrine that the Universe
and all things in it have reached their
present forms through successive stages
physically necessitated" (Spencer 1904,
2:7). Just so: Once one accepts the
philosophy of naturalism, some form
of naturalistic evolution is an"inevitable
corollary." Finding a plausible scientific
theory is secondary.

In
Spencer's writings we get a glimpse
of the intellectual pressure that impelled
him toward a naturalistic view of evolution.
"I cheerfully acknowledged," he writes
in The Principles Of Psychology,
that the hypothesis of evolution is
beset by "serious difficulties" scientifically.
Yet, "save for those who still adhere
to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine
of special creations derived from it,
there is no alternative but this hypothesis
or no hypothesis." And no one can long
remain in "the neutral state of having
no hypothesis" (Spencer 1896, 1:466
n). Pearcey
(MC) Page 79

A
pivotal point to consider here is that naturalism
is knowingly or unwittingly adopted as a form
of denial. Such an approach shortcuts objective
explorations in the mind, circumvents potentially
fruitful areas of scientific investigation,
and excludes God. If the denial is specifically
geared to exclude the latter, it also precludes
the former considerations. How does one then
define life in real terms?

Spencer
has made a choice for himself. We can similarly
decide that the Hebrew Genesis account holds
no water, or explore the text and even current
science data to see where that takes us. In
fact, many who criticize the Bible have been
found to lack an understanding of the text,
in context. But let's put the Bible outside
our review, does Spencer's view hold water?
If he is reacting to the Scriptures, then his
choice is a reaction and not thinking based
on the best available information. That is
a tact taken without critical review of the
options. This falls into a trap of assumption,
presumption, and pre-conclusion. Again, we
are not turning our back on nature, just a
naturalism that is presumed to explain all.
Unlike Spencer, you have the option to consider
new perspectives that he may not have had access
to. Either way, for Spencer, Darwinism was
a tool to work a specific end to his liking.
WindowView is begging the answer based on what
we can see, fully, not what we chose to see
partially.

He
concludes with these telling words:
"The Special Creation belief had dropped
out of my mind many years before, and
I could not remain in a suspended state:
acceptance of the only conceivable
alternative was peremptory" (Duncan
1908, 2:319). Here is a candid admission
that Spencer was driven by a sense
of philosophical necessity—naturalistic
evolution was "the only conceivable
alternative" to creation—more
than by a dispassionate assessment
of the scientific evidence. Pearcey
(MC) Page 80

Spencer
was only one among many who thought this way.

Thomas
H. Huxley — Darwin's Bulldog

Clearly
recognized and often quoted, Huxley's support
is not clearly defined for the casual observer.
You may be simply amazed to read that again
it's not the science that gets the support,
but instead there is a personal agenda in place:

Thomas
Huxley christened himself Darwin's
bulldog and offered his natural "combativeness,"
as he put it, in service and to the
cause. So it may come as a surprise
to learn that Huxley was never convinced
that Darwin's theory of natural selection
amounted to much scientifically; Huxley
argued that the effectiveness of the
mechanism would not be proved until
a new species had been produced by
artificial selection.

What
then gave Huxley his bulldog determination
to fight for Darwin? The answer is
once again largely philosophical. Before
his encounter with Darwin, Huxley writes,
"I had long done with the Pentateuchal
cosmogony." He had also surveyed early
forms of evolutionary theory, finding
them all unsatisfactory. And yet, he
writes, he continued to nurse a "pious
conviction that Evolution, after all,
would turn out true" (Huxley 1903,
1:241, 243). Pearcey
(MC) Page 80

Huxley
and Spencer both lean on a naturalism that
they admit lacks support for evolution, but
in doing so they've met their personal goal
to avoid all discussion of creation as an alternative
view.

The
notion that naturalism under-girds the framework
of evolution is rooted in thinking separate
from objective and empirical science.

Interestingly
enough, Darwin's thoughts on gradualism—which
characterizes the progress of evolution over
long periods of time—stems from geology
and the work of Charles Lyell. And Lyell in
turn repays the complement to Darwin by throwing
his hat in the ring.

Charles Lyell — The Past Tells All

Evolution
theory absolutely implies "What came before."
And so, biology found a bedfellow in geology.
Fossils, time, and natural history walk through
this terminal en route to a modern theory.
Charles Lyell's work as a geologist lead to
the idea of uniformitarianism. This framework
put natural laws and time to work and set a
stage for Darwin's thinking. Even Huxley was
persuaded by Lyell's arguments for the ordinary
or natural processes seemed responsible for
new life forms appearing on the planet.

In
1859 he wrote to Lyell: "I by
no means suppose that the transmutation
hypothesis is proven or anything like
it. But ... I would very strongly urge
upon you that it is the logical development
of Uniformitarianism, and that its
adoption would harmonize the spirit
of Paleontology with that of Physical
Geology " (Huxley 1903, 1:252).

As
he put it more simply in a speech,
if the world is governed by uniformly
operating laws, then the successive
populations of beings "must have proceeded from one another in
the way of progressive modification"
(Huxley 1859, 35, emphasis in original).
If one accepts philosophical naturalism,
then something very much like Darwinism
must be true a priori. This explains
why Huxley was willing to do battle
for Darwin, without being overly concerned
about the scientific details. Pearcey
(MC) Page 81

The
general idea is to take principles that appear
to work in one sphere of our existence and
apply that to other aspects of being. In this
case, what has come to explain movement of
continents and beds of stone have helped shape
the way life's evolution must have worked.

Biological
evolution was the natural and inevitable
consequence of extending uniformitarian
thinking into biological sciences.
This was admitted by the advocates
of evolution in the years following
1859. As Huxley confessed in 1887:
"... It brings home to every reader
of ordinary intelligence a great principle
and a great fact—the principle
that the past must be explained by
the present unless good cause can be
shown to the contrary, and the fact
that, so far as our knowledge of the
past history of life on our globe goes,
no such cosmos can be shown—I
can not but belief that Lyell was,
for others, as for myself, of the chief
agent in smoothing the road for Darwin." Denton
(ETC) Page 72

Lyell
was a trail blazer with uniformitarianism and
something called the analogical method. These
concepts became tools to fashion the views
held in the eighteenth century.

The
analogical method of assigning causes
was also significant in the landmark
work of Charles Lyell, whose core principle
became enshrined in geological literature
as "The present is a key to the past." Bradley
and Thaxton (CH) Page 199

So
much of our daily life builds on experience
of the minute, hour, day or preceding history
from our childhood to the present. The innate
nature to rely on past experience is a hand
rail that guides us, yet this principle can
easily be extrapolated and rationalized into
an assumption about science, laws, and nature.
The mental leap from geology to biology may
have seemed simple enough. We now know otherwise,
but from the bulldogs there came a momentum
that rolled out of the past and persists to
the present.

Momentum
Built by the Bulldogs Impacts Us Today

You might ask: 'So
what is the difference ... is evolution theory correct or not?' Thinking that
evolution theory is correct, by default, short circuits insights and is distracting
from other truth. Not that everything about evolution is incorrect, but that
a critical review reveals an entirely different sense of what reality represents.
That reality opens options, choices, and even new avenues for science research.
But the limitations have been set in place because we still hear the arguments
stemming back to the bulldogs. Reversing the momentum is not simple, for within
the momentum is a long-standing bias against any view other than naturalism
alone.

Concerning
the politics of biology:

Many
scientists are understandably uncomfortable
with the idea that skill in politics
and public relations help a theory
gaining acceptance. They like to believe
that the dominant factor in the success
of a theory is the objective evidence
in its favor. Pearcey (MC) Page 89

Pearcey
notes that the Darwinist strategies were clear
from the start, even back to the nineteenth century. Before Darwin
published the Origin, he rallied a small
group of biologists to support his work. This
was a working of political strategies where
the public saw a unity of support, minor points
were conceded in favor of the theory overall,
and support was even accepted by those who
disagreed over the details.

In
this way the Darwinians gradually gained
a majority. Their supporters were able
to influence the educational system
as teachers. They took control of the
educational process at scientific periodicals
so that editors and referees became
willing to accept papers from a Darwinian
viewpoint. The journal Nature was founded at least in part as a vehicle
for spreading the Darwinian message.
Darwin won the day in part because
his supporters were adept at the employee
and public-relations tactics, and they
outmaneuvered their rivals (Bowler
1988, 68-71). Pearcey
(MC) Page 89

What
Is Darwinism?

While
we'd like to discuss science as the sole focus,
we again and again run into the philosophical
nature of this topic. We can chose to ignore
the implications, certainly many before your
time chose to do so. But WindowView will soon
venture past this topic to pull in other perspectives.
The result of appreciating where an understanding
of origins leaves us is remarkable. That opens
the window to other topics you might typically
dismiss. But let's be honest, what Darwinism
does is go beyond science.

If
Darwin's key supporters did not completely
accept the theory, then why did it succeed?
Perhaps. as Pearcey notes, a scientific rationale
was cobbled together for the benefit of those
who support naturalism above all else.

Both
Darwin's supporters and opponents understood
that philosophical naturalism was the
central issue. Among opponents, Princeton
theologian Charles Hodge wrote an essay
entitled What is Darwinism? He answered bluntly that Darwinism
is tantamount to atheism: "Natural
selection is selection made by natural
laws a, working without intention and
design." And "the denial
of design in nature is virtually the
denial of God" (Hodge 1994,85, 155).
Among supporters, Karl Vogt noted happily
that Darwin's theory "turns the Creator—and
his occasional intervention in the
revolutions of the earth and in the
production of species—without
any hesitation out of doors, inasmuch
as it does not leave the smallest room
for the agency of such a Being" (cited
in Hodge 1994, 110). Pearcey
(MC) Page 82

Added Perspective:

Philosophy can provide the mental gymnastics
to gain perspectives on life, reality, and
existence. Philosophy can aid in teaching us
how to best pursue sound science. But any philosophy
turned into a personal agenda makes a turn
in another direction. If Darwin's supporters
include promoters who are less concerned for
the evidence and more so driven by other concern—some
very personal at best—then who is ultimately
best served by the efforts of those such as
Huxley or Spencer? We must turn over the stones
of history to make a critical assessment. Where
is the science and where is the posturing?
The Scopes trial is another example that is
often misunderstood by the public. Hollywood
gets in the way. Few learn how the scientific
establishment forced issues in a way that undermines
the enterprise of science itself. The outcome
becomes an impassioned plea to hold to teaching
evolution and perhaps a political correctness
to do so. But the drive behind this movement
diverts attention from a more important review
of what science could be telling us without
the personal spin.

The following pages provide information that
was not available to the bulldogs of the world
in former time. We now have an opportunity
to see exactly what might have changed the
past debate and shifted the momentum of human
thought in yet another direction—and all
this based on science and not personal spin.

Quotations from
"Mere Creation" (MC) edited by William
A. Dembski are used by permission of InterVarsity
Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com
All rights reserved. No portion of this material
may be used without permission from InterVarsity
Press.

The WindowView drops many of the typical presumptions to take another look. What does scientific data tell us if we start without assumptions? And ... how contiguous is science information if examined along with scriptural perspectives provided by the Bible? The Bible is the only religious or holy book we know of that is in fact consistent with science. While not a textbook, the Scriptures are either contradictory or complementary to scientific perspectives. Have you looked at these perspectives? To see 'Science and Scripture in Harmony' is to reveal life, reality, and your future.

Writer / Editor: Dr. T. Peterson, Director,
WindowView.org

(090204)

For a general listing of books, visit the WindowView Book Page for: Science and Scripture . References of Interest

Step Up To Life

Time spent looking ... through a window on life and choice ... brings the opportunity to see in a new light. The offer for you to Step Up To Life is presented on many of the web pages at WindowView. Without further explanation we offer you the steps here ... knowing that depending on what you have seen or may yet explore in the window ... these steps will be the most important of your life ...